Boston Canucker wrote:Not structurally. You've been overplaying the removal of linkage in your critique. It's not the long term fix the players/Fehr has been talking about. I would suspect it will be in there in the final deal, and that is not the sticking point that I see coming out of Bettman's response, or even those commentators who offered a more critical eye on the PA proposal. The two sides now have proposals on the table; the nitty gritty starts now. There will be better and worse days but this does not feel at all like 2004 when the movement from a no cap to a cap system was at the center of things. Winter Classic kick off, still my bet.

I'm not overplaying the removal of linkage at all.

So are you saying the cap is on the table or not, which was the basis of your response to me? If so, then I have to wonder why not even Bettman himself brought this up? In fact, in his press conference he said, and I quote, "there is an acceptance, if you will, that we will continue to have a cap system." ( it is about 6 and half minutes into his TSN version of the press conference) Those are Bettman's words, and that is what I said in my post, that you highlighted and disagreed with (specifically, you highlighted my words saying "both sides agree that the cap is not in question.") and countered me on that basis, I presumed you disagreed with those words, but....Gary Bettman agrees with me. So, I have to ask, why is Bettman not bringing up this point that you make, that the issue of linkage undermines the cap system? That is your point, right? Why would he let that go when, and I agree with you, he is losing the PR war? If the PA was fundamentally challenging the basis of this system, that would be huge news, and yet Bettman, the mainstream news, are not saying so...and they know more about the proposal than any of us. So, what's the deal? Any chance you're misreading things?

Boston Canucker wrote:Not structurally. You've been overplaying the removal of linkage in your critique. It's not the long term fix the players/Fehr has been talking about. I would suspect it will be in there in the final deal, and that is not the sticking point that I see coming out of Bettman's response, or even those commentators who offered a more critical eye on the PA proposal. The two sides now have proposals on the table; the nitty gritty starts now. There will be better and worse days but this does not feel at all like 2004 when the movement from a no cap to a cap system was at the center of things. Winter Classic kick off, still my bet.

I'm not overplaying the removal of linkage at all.

So are you saying the cap is on the table or not, which was the basis of your response to me? If so, then I have to wonder why not even Bettman himself brought this up? In fact, in his press conference he said, and I quote, "there is an acceptance, if you will, that we will continue to have a cap system." ( it is about 6 and half minutes into his TSN version of the press conference) Those are Bettman's words, and that is what I said in my post, that you highlighted and disagreed with (specifically, you highlighted my words saying "both sides agree that the cap is not in question.") and countered me on that basis, I presumed you disagreed with those words, but....Gary Bettman agrees with me. So, I have to ask, why is Bettman not bringing up this point that you make, that the issue of linkage undermines the cap system? That is your point, right? Why would he let that go when, and I agree with you, he is losing the PR war? If the PA was fundamentally challenging the basis of this system, that would be huge news, and yet Bettman, the mainstream news, are not saying so...and they know more about the proposal than any of us. So, what's the deal? Any chance you're misreading things?

cap system does not equal LINKED cap system. Every detail that has been released says that the linkage was removed. Yes the players have said hard cap (sort of) but there is no guarantee to the owners if something happens to the business or growth stalls or goes backward that the player salaries will remain in line with revenues. They offered a temporary band aid before going right back to the level of linakge the owners do not want. It isn't a long term solution for anything. They've done everything in their power to soften the cap without actually proposing no cap. Yay them. As soon as they accept the linkage part of things (and likely some escrow) negotiations will begin.

Bettman if you notice isn't negotiating in the press. All details are coming from the players side. I'm sure his comment of the two sides being far apart and having different views of the world has nothing to do with the system they proposed and how far apart that system is to what the owners are willing to even negotiate on. If I had to wager that is what his comment meant. There is a $1.74 BILLION dollar gulf between the proposals and the gulf of an effective hard cap system. The only thing the players have conceded is there will be some sort of cap. It isn't much of a concession given once a cap is in place it is never going away. They haven't conceded a rollback and only an artificial slowing of salaries compared to revenues if of course revenues continue to grow as they have. THere is no guarantee of that and a fairly significant chance that under the players plan the salaries outpace growth (sound familiar to about decade ago?). The owners are not going to take that chance and then go back to the CBA they already want to modify.

Why aren't people challenging it? Maybe because most people seem to think the league fought for a hard cap last time around when they were fighting for either a really really low and nearly permanent hard cap or what they actually shut down the season for a flexible hard cap that moved with revenues. The choice for the players remains the same today. I'm not saying a hard cap without linkage is off the table but that offer is going to be significantly lower than one that has linkage because I don't believe the owners have any interest in going down a non-linkage road. And really fans shouldn't have much interest in that either.

This is a good read IMO. Though he missed the importance of linkage as well though sort of covers that by mentioning the players proposal gave themselves guaranteed raises for 3 years.

Yes, as I thought, you have placed too much emphasis on the linkage and have imputed it as a long term point of the PA's proposal. The reason people aren't challenging it and the reason why the poster on the link you mention does not place importance on it - and the reason why Bettman does not define a distinction between cap and linkage cap system - is that it is not key to what the PA proposed long term (and let's face it, long term is the 4th year, that's it). They proposed a set % of salary raises over three years, which is not linkage but is cost certainty and then the players can take it back to the 57%. The 57% will come down in the new CBA and we all know that, but it is still linkage to HRR, the PA did not propose eliminating it long term, just changing the rate of salary raises (one which will have them leaving money on the table if revenues rise as they have done over the past years) and then likely back to 57%. You've placed emphasis on something that is not key to the proposal long term. You can argue about going back to 57%, which they probably will want to do, fine, but not the loss of a connection to HRR.

Oh, and the claim the Bettman does not negotiate through the media was priceless. Maybe you were just teasing on that one, but the man is a master of it. Earlier this year, interviewed on Costas with David Stern, Bettman let Stern claim that the NHL would get the revenue linkage for salaries down to a 50% split and Bettman just sat beside him and smiled, let it be thrown out there. If you think they didn't set that up ahead of time, well, never mind, we know they did. Yes, Bettman is happy to negotiate in the media. I'm not saying Fehr won't, but let's not be naive on how both sides play this out. If Bettman thought the PA was really seeking to transform the cap in the way you suggest long term, you're crazy if you think he would on his own grant that the cap system remains and not make the distinction about long term linkage. He wouldn't let the public/media think that. He'd hammer them, as he did in 2004.

Per - do you have a feel for the business side of the SEL - ie., what are they and the KHL doing differently (or are they facing a completely different economic scenario)?

The SEL is quite different from the NHL. For starters, we don't have owners!

Teams are associations, that consist of their members (players, fans, kids and their parents, etc). The members then elect a board of directors that run the team. Often these boards are filled with former players, eg Foppa and Nazzy running Modo now.

The SEL is not a closed league. The two teams that finish last are challenged by four teams from the second tier league, Allsvenskan (aka as the SHA), to determine what teams will have SEL status next year. Thus a team can never afford to forfeit a season. Losers will be punished, not awarded like in the NHL. It also means that any town with a hockey team (= every town) has a theoretical chance of their team reaching the SEL. Helps keep the dream alive.

Revenue is mostly from gates, sponsors (thus the corporate logos on jerseys) and TV.

There is no draft. Teams have youth programmes, typically starting around age 6, that help raise players from within. Traditionally most players have spent their entire career playing for the same team, but nowadays teams buy and sell players to improve the roster. All players not under contract are free agents, regardless of age.

If you award three points in some games, you should do so in all games. The SEL, like most European leagues uses a three point system where you get three points for a regulation time win, two points for an OT or shootout win, one point for an OT or shootout loss and zero points for a regulation time loss. I like that they differentiate between a real win and a lottery win.

So, quite different, eh? But it's still hockey, and that's what matters.

Per - do you have a feel for the business side of the SEL - ie., what are they and the KHL doing differently (or are they facing a completely different economic scenario)?

The SEL is quite different from the NHL. For starters, we don't have owners!

Teams are associations, that consist of their members (players, fans, kids and their parents, etc). The members then elect a board of directors that run the team. Often these boards are filled with former players, eg Foppa and Nazzy running Modo now.

The SEL is not a closed league. The two teams that finish last are challenged by four teams from the second tier league, Allsvenskan (aka as the SHA), to determine what teams will have SEL status next year. Thus a team can never afford to forfeit a season. Losers will be punished, not awarded like in the NHL. It also means that any town with a hockey team (= every town) has a theoretical chance of their team reaching the SEL. Helps keep the dream alive.

Revenue is mostly from gates, sponsors (thus the corporate logos on jerseys) and TV.

There is no draft. Teams have youth programmes, typically starting around age 6, that help raise players from within. Traditionally most players have spent their entire career playing for the same team, but nowadays teams buy and sell players to improve the roster. All players not under contract are free agents, regardless of age.

If you award three points in some games, you should do so in all games. The SEL, like most European leagues uses a three point system where you get three points for a regulation time win, two points for an OT or shootout win, one point for an OT or shootout loss and zero points for a regulation time loss. I like that they differentiate between a real win and a lottery win.

So, quite different, eh? But it's still hockey, and that's what matters.

Yes, as I thought, you have placed too much emphasis on the linkage and have imputed it as a long term point of the PA's proposal. The reason people aren't challenging it and the reason why the poster on the link you mention does not place importance on it - and the reason why Bettman does not define a distinction between cap and linkage cap system - is that it is not key to what the PA proposed long term (and let's face it, long term is the 4th year, that's it).

What's this now? no shit they didn't propose linkage. I never inputed anything as part of the PAs long term proposal. Which first of all wasn'[t long term. I inputed that because the linkage was removed such a proposal has no hope in hell of being a starting point.

They proposed a set % of salary raises over three years, which is not linkage but is cost certainty and then the players can take it back to the 57%. The 57% will come down in the new CBA and we all know that, but it is still linkage to HRR, the PA did not propose eliminating it long term, just changing the rate of salary raises (one which will have them leaving money on the table if revenues rise as they have done over the past years) and then likely back to 57%. You've placed emphasis on something that is not key to the proposal long term. You can argue about going back to 57%, which they probably will want to do, fine, but not the loss of a connection to HRR.

Stop and listen to yourself. In an industry where the owners believe and are correct that the player salaries are too high they players have proposed:

-No rollback of any kind-guaranteed raises despite there being no guarantee growth of revenue will significantly outpace those raises. There is a very significant chance that in those first three years the players get a bigger share of the pie while at the same time attempting to make the dichotomy between rich and poor larger -and when all is said and done after giving themselves those raises they are willing to go back to what the owners think is too much.

Yeah quite a proposal. Three years of raises followed by the deal that is resulting in this lockout.

I've placed emphasis on what is NOT in the players proposal because that is the emphasis the OWNERS placed on the last lockout. It's why the framework they proposed is a non-starter.

Oh, and the claim the Bettman does not negotiate through the media was priceless....

During the sit down negotiations and the proposal back and forth the leaks and information have almost all come from the PA. The league has been quite private about the whole thing. Has Bettman talked about the troubles and tried to oversell them...certainly. But during the last number of weeks it's been all PA. Is there any wonder that no one really knew the owners actually proposed increased revenue sharing in their offer until Grange from sportsnet mentioned so?

The owners won't hammer anyone until the lockout actually begins. Then they will begin hammering. Right now there is no point to doing so. Hence the quiet from that side of the table on what the proposals entail.

I know the standard response from people right now is the owners made the mess they should clean it up. Yes they did. but just like any business you play the hand dealt and you look for advantage. That does NOT mean you like the system or that you approve of everything in the system. You do that stuff in order to remain competitive within those parameters. Happens in business all the time...I may not like what hoops I have to jump through to get this business but until you can change those hoops you do it. They just need to stop spending money and offering those deals some say. Well sure except if a player won't sign a contract that is not stupid how do you then attract that player? What if the GMs decided on July 1 not to spend money? Well on July 2 out comes the collusion charge. The only way to clean up the mess is through a new CBA...hence the lockout that will begin on September 15.

Mondi wrote:I'm saying the combination of neo-con owners and undereduacted meadhead players will result in yet another season lost.

I'm saying you're wrong.

BTW Mondi are YOU "undereduacted"?

Mondi wrote:If I was Henrik Sedin, Jason Spezza, Martin Brodeur or others, I would be pissed off that my legacy and stats were being jeopardized by yet another work stoppage in the middle of my career.

So you're saying Martin Brodeur will play until age 59??

Are YOU saying undereducated is not a word? Or are you just implying that I'm a high school dropout?

Middle, as in after the beginning but before the end. You'll have to excuse my choices of words, or hockey players.

The point, which I'm sure you grasped, is that players who have already have lost one season of their most productive years stand to lose another. If I were a Hall of Fame-type player, who might need an extra 1 to 2 seasons to solidify my spot, I might be upset that my meathead colleagues and greedy-capitalist-pig owners were costing me a possible spot.

Yes, as I thought, you have placed too much emphasis on the linkage and have imputed it as a long term point of the PA's proposal. The reason people aren't challenging it and the reason why the poster on the link you mention does not place importance on it - and the reason why Bettman does not define a distinction between cap and linkage cap system - is that it is not key to what the PA proposed long term (and let's face it, long term is the 4th year, that's it).

What's this now? no shit they didn't propose linkage. I never inputed anything as part of the PAs long term proposal. Which first of all wasn'[t long term. I inputed that because the linkage was removed such a proposal has no hope in hell of being a starting point.

BC said everything I was going to say.

Linkage and the % is clearly meant to be part of the negotiation, for example the PA would settle for 2 years of non-linked raises in the cap and a linked cap in year 4 of 52%. It is not a "non-starter", nobody is saying linkage is a non-starter, the PA is saying lets use the next few years to milk the high-revenue teams to benefit the low revenue teams, which is more important than settling on a

What you're also missing is that the option in year 4 is with the players. If revenues have dropped and the league reverts to the linkage cap, the cap will go down. So let's say league revenues go down over the next 3 years (something that has never happened in the NHL as far as I can tell in the Bettman era, see http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2007/10/nhl-r ... ation.html). The players will have seen the cap rise by a few percentage points each year, about half the cap raise we're seeing under the linkage model. After 3 years of raises of 2.8%, this CBA is over because the players won't exercise the option to go back to the current CBA. Hardly seems disastrous unless the League revenues drop enormously - which is unlikely thanks to the lucrative TV deal, increased gates in the big US markets, LA winning the Cup, NYR poised to go deep in the playoffs, Chicago's and Boston's recent wins, Philly's great future, the removal of Atlanta, etc. For the owners to have suffered at all under this model, the league's revenue growth must be less than 2.8% and teams must all spend to the cap. (I also note that as the cap has grown, the number of teams at the ceiling has decreased and the number of teams at the floor has substantially increased).

The other possibility is revenues continuing to increase at a pace greater than 2.8%. In this case, owners are pocketing a greater share of revenue, to the tune of $465 million over 3 years if current growth continues.

I think its a little bit of a stretch to suggest that the PA proposal isn't even a starting point. What if they negotiate to no raises in the cap for 3 years? Or a cap drop to $65 million and no raises for 3 years?

Under the "linkage" system, as more and more teams spend at the floor instead of the ceiling, the players aren't getting their 57%. By my math on capgeek they're barely over 50% of the reported league revenues of $3.3 billion. The players want to get closer to their linkage amount by encouraging spending by the weaker franchises, while capping the amount of the raises in the cap floor. I suspect this is going to be a very attractive prospect to the multitude of cap floor owners, because even under the League's proposal there is still potential for huge jumps in the cap floor if revenues continue to grow at 7-8%.

ESQ wrote:What you're also missing is that the option in year 4 is with the players. If revenues have dropped and the league reverts to the linkage cap

Is that actually true?

I know that in the 4th year there is an option to go to 57%, what I cant seem to find is if that 57 number is based on an estimate or if it brings escrow back.

I think getting rid of escrow is the no1 goal of the PA in these negotiations (the players loath it) it would seem odd to propose something that removes it for 3 years and then gives the owners the option to bring it back.

Potatoe1 wrote:I think getting rid of escrow is the no1 goal of the PA in these negotiations (the players loath it) it would seem odd to propose something that removes it for 3 years and then gives the owners the option to bring it back.

My understanding is the 4th year currently reverts fully to the current CBA - same percentage, contract limits, etc.

According to this there have only been two times in 7 years that the players haven't gotten all of the escrow money back - they lost 2.5% in 07/07, then the big haircut of 12.9% in 08/09. That took a global economic downturn, 12 teams spending to the cap and 7 teams within $3 million of the cap. Players took more than their share due to extremely high spending and only 0.6% revenue growth.

The reverse of this is that players took less than their 57% share in 5 out 7 years, due to the number of teams not spending to the cap. Under last year's $68 million cap, the players share fell to barely over 50% because of the number of weak franchises not able to spend above the ceiling.

I don't think from the PA proposal that getting rid of escrow is the biggest concern. The players want to find a way to get more hockey-related revenues paid to the players by finding a way to get "poor" teams' cap space used, or improving the health of the poor teams so that they're able to spend more. This was successful in Nashville, where a poor, cap-floor team is now able to spend to the cap (or close to) and hand out the largest contract in the history of the NHL. For every franchise that is transformed like Nashville, that's another $20-30 million in the pockets of the players.

This is why the players want to be seen as partners - they want to improve the health of the poor teams, not so that they get a bigger piece of the pie, but so that they get as much as they're entitled to.

here is the only article I could find that illustrates my point - the cap (and revenue) in 2008/09 increased by 12.7%. Spending on salaries only increased 10.9%. This is particularly interesting because this is the year of the big escrow hit, which would have been far worse had salaries kept pace with revenues.